RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    공소제기되지 않은 범죄사실을 형벌가중적 양형사유로 고려하는 문제 = Considering Uncharged Offenses as Aggravating Sentencing Factors

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A109535622

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    Korean Supreme Court held that sentencing is, in principle, at the judge’s discretion. However, considering uncharged offenses that are not covered by the sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act and not proven beyond reasonable doubt as essential aggravating sentencing factors cannot be permitted because it violates the principle of responsibility by punishing the defendant for an uncharged crime. However, as the meaning of the Supreme Court’s holding is unclear, this article seeks to clarify the case where the uncharged offenses cannot be considered as aggravating sentencing factors.
    First, to determine whether the uncharged offense can be considered as sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to examine the offense is related to the charged offense in indictment, rather than mechanically determining whether each subparagraph of Article 51 corresponds to the case. This is appropriate considering the Supreme Court’s holding(requesting determine “based on the offense for which indictment was filed”), U.S federal law’s approach on this issue and wording of Article 51 of the Criminal Act. However, it must also be examined whether procedural safeguard, such as the defendant’s right to defense, are protected during this process.
    Next, as long as it is included in the sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, there is no inevitable reason to require proof to the extent of beyond the reasonable doubt. However, if the standard of proof is too lower than the prosecution, only the minimum crimes will be charged and the evidence of additional criminal activity is introduced during the sentencing phase and becomes aggravating sentencing factors. Also, considering the balance with the standard of proof required in civil litigation, it should be higher than ‘highly likelihood’. However, offenses that are not related to the indictment should not be considered as aggravating sentencing factors even if they are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    Above all, what is important in this matter is the balance between the principle of responsibility and an obligation to take into account as many facts as possible in sentencing. This article sought this balance in the existing system, but various legislative attempts can also be made in the future.
    번역하기

    Korean Supreme Court held that sentencing is, in principle, at the judge’s discretion. However, considering uncharged offenses that are not covered by the sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act and not proven beyond reasonable doubt as...

    Korean Supreme Court held that sentencing is, in principle, at the judge’s discretion. However, considering uncharged offenses that are not covered by the sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act and not proven beyond reasonable doubt as essential aggravating sentencing factors cannot be permitted because it violates the principle of responsibility by punishing the defendant for an uncharged crime. However, as the meaning of the Supreme Court’s holding is unclear, this article seeks to clarify the case where the uncharged offenses cannot be considered as aggravating sentencing factors.
    First, to determine whether the uncharged offense can be considered as sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, it is reasonable to examine the offense is related to the charged offense in indictment, rather than mechanically determining whether each subparagraph of Article 51 corresponds to the case. This is appropriate considering the Supreme Court’s holding(requesting determine “based on the offense for which indictment was filed”), U.S federal law’s approach on this issue and wording of Article 51 of the Criminal Act. However, it must also be examined whether procedural safeguard, such as the defendant’s right to defense, are protected during this process.
    Next, as long as it is included in the sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, there is no inevitable reason to require proof to the extent of beyond the reasonable doubt. However, if the standard of proof is too lower than the prosecution, only the minimum crimes will be charged and the evidence of additional criminal activity is introduced during the sentencing phase and becomes aggravating sentencing factors. Also, considering the balance with the standard of proof required in civil litigation, it should be higher than ‘highly likelihood’. However, offenses that are not related to the indictment should not be considered as aggravating sentencing factors even if they are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    Above all, what is important in this matter is the balance between the principle of responsibility and an obligation to take into account as many facts as possible in sentencing. This article sought this balance in the existing system, but various legislative attempts can also be made in the future.

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼